Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 17, 2021

Bullock v. Eric Unknown

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:21-cv-01555
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

Bullock v. Eric Unknown: Judge Swain dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute after Bullock did not update his address.

Who this affects

Rasuan J. Bullock's action against Eric Unknown and the other named defendants was dismissed without prejudice; Bullock was also denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.

What happened

In Bullock v. Eric Unknown, the court required Rasuan J. Bullock to provide a current address because court orders sent to him had been returned as undeliverable.

Judge Louis L. Stanton had warned that failing to update the address within 30 days would lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute. His order was also returned as undeliverable, and Bullock did not submit the required address information.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Bullock v. Eric Unknown · No. 1:21-cv-01555
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
June 17, 2021

Background

Rasuan J. Bullock sued Eric Unknown and other defendants. The court had been unable to deliver orders to Bullock. On May 3, 2021, Judge Louis L. Stanton ordered Bullock to submit a change-of-address form within 30 days. The order warned that failing to update his address would result in dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The May 3 order was returned to the court as undeliverable on May 19, 2021.

Ruling

The court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Bullock a copy of the order and record service on the docket.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Bullock fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not provide additional facts about the underlying claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.